Diru Teoria Modernoa (DTM) Parlamentuetan

(https://twitter.com/tobararbulu/status/1297163813280722944)

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

MMT? What's that? Here!

2020 abu. 22

Britainia Handian

(https://twitter.com/gowerinitiative/status/1197653584478953473)

Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies@GowerInitiative

A currency issuing government can purchase whatever is for sale in its own currency, including all idlelabour. Domestic productive capacity, real resources & inflation limit investment NOT revenue from taxation.

#GovernmentIsNotAHouseholdOrBusiness #GeneralElection2019 #MMT

2019 aza. 22

AEBn(i) Orain dela urtebete bat

(https://twitter.com/wbmosler/status/1413863422815522820)

Warren B. Mosler #MMT@wbmosler

One year anniversary next week: https://hern.house.gov/news/documents

2021 uzt. 10

(ii) Ia oraintxe

(https://twitter.com/tobararbulu/status/1414010327675674626)

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

Watching Representative John Yarmuth on President Biden's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request @CSPAN

https://c-span.org/video/?512625-5/washington-journal-rep-john-yarmuth-d-ky-discusses-president-bidens-fy-2022-budget-request

00:00:00WASHINGTON JOURNAL CONTINUED --"WASHINGTON JOURNAL" CONTINUES.

00:00:11 WITH THIS IS JOHN YARMUTH OF KENTUCKY. THE PRESIDENT UNVEILED

A BUDGET REQUEST FOR 2022. YESTERDAY WE HAD ON KEVIN HERN AND HERE IS WHAT HE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL. [VIDEO CLIP]

Show Less Text

00:00:27

SPEND -- >> WE SPEND $1 TRILLION A YEAR FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES. MANY OF US IN AMERICA NEEDED THAT HELP. WE ALSO OUGHT TO BE HELPING THOSE FOLKS MOVE ON TO JOBS. THE AMERICAN JOBS PLAN, AS THE PRESIDENT HAS PUSHED, ANTI-AMERICAN FAMILY PLANNED -- THE AMERICAN FAMILY PLAN IS OVER $4 TRILLION OF PLANNING -- OF SPENDING. THE AMERICAN JOBS PLANN IS OVER $1.5 TRILLION. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A $6 TRILLION BUDGET. EVEN DEMOCRATS ARE SENDING LETTERS TO THE LEADERS OF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE SAYING WE HAVE GOT TO GET OUR FISCAL HOUSE IN ORDER.

Show Less Text

00:01:16HOW CAN WE SPEND $6 TRILLION AND ALL THE OTHER MONEY PRESIDENT BIDEN WANTS TO SPEND? HOW CAN WE AFFORD IT?

00:01:31

WE CAN AFFORD IT BECAUSE WE DETERMINE HOW MUCH MONEY IS IN THE SYSTEM. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT LIKE ANY OTHER USER OF CURRENCY, NOT ANY LOCAL STATE OR GOVERNMENT. WE ISSUE OUR OWN CURRENCY AND WE CAN SPEND ENOUGH TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE ONLY CONSTRAINT BEING THAT WE DO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT INFLATION FROM ASPEN -- FROM THAT SPENDING. WE HAVE SO MUCH DEBT AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN, IT IS GOING TO BE ON THEIR BACKS. THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS. THE MAKING NEED AN EDUCATION ON HOW THE MONETARY SYSTEM DOES WORK. I REMEMBER WHEN PAUL RYAN WAS CHAIR OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE AND EVEN BEFORE THAT, ALL OF THESE FORECASTS ABOUT GLOOM AND DOOM ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO IQ THAT DEBT ANDINTEREST RATES WILL CROWD OUT OTHER SPENDING. WE BASICALLY DOUBLED THE NATIONAL DEBT FROM THE RECESSION IN 2009 UNTIL LAST YEAR BEFORE THE PANDEMIC. NONE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WANT WOULD HAPPEN, HAPPENED. WE DID NOT HAVE INFLATION. WE HAD RECORD LOW INTEREST RATES. THE DOLLAR WAS TRADING WITH NORMAL LEVELS, VIS-A-VIS, OTHER CURRENCIES. A LOT OF ECONOMISTS HAVE BEGUN TO SAY MAYBE WE HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT DEBT IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WAY. EVEN FED CHAIR JAY POWELL HAS BASICALLY SAID WE HAVE THE PHYSICAL SPACE TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO RIGHT NOW TO MAKE THE INVESTMENTS WE NEED TO MAKE TO BUILD THE KIND OF ECONOMY FOR THE FUTURE WE ALL HOPE WE WILL HAVE.

Show Less Text

00:03:18WHY ARE PEOPLE WRONG ABOUT THIS? HOW SHOULD WE BE THINKINGABOUT DEBT AND DEFICIT?

00:03:26 I DON'T GET ANY ROYALTIES BUT I WOULD FLOG A WORK CALLED "THE DEFICIT MYTH." IT HAS BECOME A BESTSELLER. SHE SAYS IF YOU LOOK ATTHE NATIONAL DEBT, $20 TRILLION RIGHT NOW, SHE SAID DON'T THINK

OF IT AS DEBT. THINK OF IT AS THE MONEY THE GOVERNMENT HAS INVESTED IN THE COUNTRY OVER OUR HISTORY MINUS TAXES. THAT IS WHAT IT IS. THE 20TH TRILLION DOLLARS DID NOT EXIST -- THE $20 TRILLION DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED THEM. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO CREATE FINANCING AND THAT IS WHAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO. THE THING I AM SO IMPRESSED ABOUT FROM THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS THAT THEY ARE REVERSING DECADES AND DECADES OF OUR ASKING QUESTIONS IN THE WRONG ORDER. HISTORICALLY, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS SAID WHAT CAN WE AFFORD TO DO? THE RIGHT QUESTION IS, WHAT DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED US TO DO? THAT BECOMES THE FIRST QUESTION. ONCE YOU ANSWER THAT, YOU SAY HOW DO YOU RESOURCE THAT NEED? THAT IS NOT JUST MONEY, THAT IS ALSO CAPACITY. FOR INSTANCE, THERE IS A $225 BILLION INVESTMENT IN CHILDCARE IN THE AMERICAN FAMILIES PLAN. YOU CAN'T JUST SAY WE'RE GOING TO GET $225 BILLION TO PEOPLE TO PAY FOR CHILDCARE BECAUSE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CAPACITY. SO YOU MAKE A FALSE PROMISE AND SUBTRACT THE PRICE AND JACK THE PRICE OF EXISTING CHILDCARE EVEN HIGHER. YOU HAVE TO SPEND PART OF THAT MONEY ON BUILDING CAPACITY SO THERE IS ENOUGH CHILDCARE TO SERVICE THE PURPLE WHO NEED IT. AGAIN, THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT MONEY. I UNDERSTAND WHY MOST PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS CONCEPT. THEY THINK OF IT IN THEIR OWN FRAMEWORK WHICH IS WITHIN THEIR HOUSEHOLD WHICH IS YOU CAN'T BORROW SO MUCH MONEY YOU CAN'T PAY BACK. THAT IS NOT THE POSITION THE GOVERNMENT IS IN.

Show Less Text

00:05:39ARE YOU SAYING WE CAN JUST PRINT MORE MONEY AND THERE ARE NOCONSEQUENCES?

00:05:43THERE COULD BECAUSE --

00:05:46 THERE COULD BE CONSEQUENCES IF THERE IS TOO MUCH INFORMATION. I WILL GIVE YOU A HYPOTHETICAL. WE COULD SAY WE ARE GOING TO GIVE EVERY AMERICAN FAMILY AT $200,000 VOUCHER TOBUY A HOUSE. WE COULD DO THAT, BUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? THEREIS NOT ENOUGH HOUSING SO THE PRICES WOULD GO THROUGH THE ROOF. YOU WOULD BE CREATING A FALSE PROMISE. MEANWHILE, YOU DRIVE UP FEE-MARKET TO AN UNSUSTAINABLE LEVEL. THERE IS A LIMIT TO HOW MUCH MONEY WE CAN EJECT INTO THE ECONOMY. THE THING ABOUT THE RESCUE PLAN, AND THIS IS WHERE KEVIN HERN MAKES A MISTAKE, HE SAID $6 TRILLION FOR THE AMERICAN FAMILY PLAN AND JOBS PLAN. IT IS NOT THAT MUCH, BUT THAT IS OVER EIGHT TO 10 YEARS. THE $6 TRILLION BUDGET THE PRESIDENT PROPOSED ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN $5.7 TRILLION IF YOU HAD NO AMERICAN JOBS PLAN OR RESCUE PLAN. ONLY $300 BILLION IS IN FISCAL YOUR 22. -- FISCAL YEAR 22. THESE ARE NUMBERS THAT ARE VERY LARGE BUT SPREAD OUT OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. THAT IS WHY I THINK THE FED CHAIR AND OTHERS HAVE SAID WE HAVE TO FISCAL SPACE TO DO THIS BECAUSE INJECTING THIS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME WILL NOT CAUSE THE KIND OF INFLATION THAT IS DANGEROUS.

Show Less Text

00:07:12

THIS HEADLINE IS ON FOX NEWS'S WEBSITE AND THEY ARE QUOTING THE TAX FOUNDATION THAT THEY SAY FOUND THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGETWOULD CAUSE THE ECONOMY TO SHRINK BY 1% OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS AND COST THE ECONOMY 60 500,000 -- 65,000 JOBS.

Show Less Text

00:07:34

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU SHRINK THE ECONOMY WHEN YOU ARE ADDING THAT MUCH MONEY TO IT. I WOULD LIKE TO READ THAT ANALYSIS.

00:07:41WILL YOUR BUDGET MIRROR PRESIDENT BIDEN'S BUDGET IN EVERY WAY?

00:07:49

NOT IN EVERY WAY. WE ARE MEETING WITH ALL OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIRS AND VARIOUS CAUCUSES TO GET THEIR INPUT AS TO WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE IN A BUDGET RESOLUTION. ON A SEPARATE TRACK, WE ARE TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT WOULD GO INTO THE RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS THAT WILL BE PART OF THAT. RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS, THAT IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH YOU CAN PASS SOMETHING IN THE SENATE WITH A SIMPLE MAJORITY. THOSEDECISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE. I SUSPECT THAT A LOT OF WHAT IS INTHE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET WILL FIND ITS WAY INTO THE BUDGET RESOLUTION. THERE WILL BE SOME DEFINITE CHANGES. OUR MEMBERS ARE INDEPENDENT THINKERS.

Show Less Text

00:08:37

DO YOU SUSPECT THE PRESIDENT'S AND FOR STRUCTURE PROPOSALS MAKE IT INTO THE BUDGET -- INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSALS MAKE IT INTO THE BUDGET?

00:08:47

WE ARE ASSUMING THERE WILL BE NO BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT IN THE SENATE. WE ARE PROCEEDING AS IF THE AMERICAN JOBS PLAN AND AMERICAN FAMILY PLAN WILL BE IN THE RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS WE SENT TO THE SENATE. WE INSTRUCTED OUR OWN COMMITTEES TO DO THAT. IF THEY COME UP WITH A BIPARTISAN DEAL, LET'S SAY IT IS $1 TRILLION, WE WOULD TAKE THAT OUT OF THE RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS. NEITHER PROCESS PRECLUDES THE OTHER. WE HOPE THE SENATE DOES REACH AN BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT-- REACH A BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT AND THE REST OF IT BE DONE BY RECONCILIATION.

Show Less Text

00:09:29WE WILL GO TO TOM, LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA. REPUBLICAN LINE.

00:09:36 I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE NEVER ENDING DEALS WITH CHINA. THAT IS ALL YOU DO. YOU WORK FOR CHINA. EVERYTHING IS MADE IN CHINA NOW. YOU SIT THERE AND LIKE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. YOU'RE GOING TO DO A CONTINUING RESOLUTION LIKE YOU HAVE DONE FOR THE LAST FOREVER. YOU DON'T WORK FOR THE CITIZENS. WHAT ABOUT THE WUHAN LAB? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE A

HEARING ON THE 600,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS KILLED BY THE COMMUNIST CHINESE PARTY? PUTIN AND RUSSIA AND CHINA --

Show Less Text

00:10:17YOU HAVE A LOT THERE. JOHN YARMUTH?

00:10:21

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE THOUGHT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, I WAS TALKING ABOUT BUDGET RESOLUTION PROGRAM'S. THAT'S RESOLUTION PROGRAMS. NASH RESOLUTION -- RESOLUTION PROGRAMS. THERE IS A VERY GOOD CHANCE THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, THAT WE WOULD END UP DOING A CONTINUING RESOLUTION BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 30. WE AREGOING TO PASS OUR OPERATIONS IN JULY AND TOTALLY THE SENATE WILL MOVE AND WE CAN COME TO ANY AGREEMENT. WE HAVE BEEN STUCK OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT HAD ONE PARTY CONTROL OVER THE CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET AN AGREEMENT ON APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AND ABOARD. A CONTINUING RESOLUTION -- AND AVOID A CONTINUING RESOLUTION. BUT WE ARE GOING TO TRY. THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE FOR THE ENTIRE FISCAL YEAR, JUST SO WE HAVE TIME TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT. THE REST OF IT, I DON'T THINK I WANT TO DEAL WITH CHINESE LABS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. WE WILL LET TOM ASK THAT OF SOMEBODY ELSE. I AM CHARGE OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, NOT THE CDC.

Show Less Text

00:12:00SCOTT, THOMASVILLE, GEORGIA. REPUBLICAN.

00:12:03

GOOD MORNING. YOU MADE THE COMMENT THAT MOST PEOPLE LOOK THROUGH THE PERSPECTIVE OF THEIR OWN HOUSEHOLD AND THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME LIMITS. I AGREE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOUSEHOLDS AND THE GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE LIMITS. BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY MORE MONEY THAN THE PEOPLE HAVE. THERE ARE LIMITS OF RESOURCES. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT ANYMORE. I CAN TELL YOU, INFLATION IS HERE. THERE IS A PLACE I WENT TO THAT IS $300 A NIGHT AND NOW IT IS $350 A NIGHT. IN SOUTH GEORGIA, WE HAVE LIMITS AS FAR AS WHO WE CAN HIRE. PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO WORK. YOU HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY TO GIVE THEM. THERE IS TOO MUCH MONEY SUPPLY ALREADY. I AGREE, I THINK WE NEED ANY INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN. BUT AS FAR AS TRYING TOARTIFICIALLY PUMP UP AND HAVE A JOB STEEL, THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS PLENTY OF JOBS. WE DON'T NEED TO CREATE JOBS. LET'S NOT JUST CREATE SOMETHING TO JUST CREATE SOMETHING.

Show Less Text 00:13:23 I AGREE WITH THAT LAST COMMENT. IF YOU ARE GOING TO SPEND

MONEY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE INVESTMENTS, THEY NEED TO BE MEANINGFUL AND IMPORTANT INVESTMENTS. THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY ADD TO THE ECONOMIC CAPACITY OF THE ECONOMY. THAT IS WHAT I THINK THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN AND AMERICAN FAMILY PLAN DOES -- AMERICAN FAMILY

PLAN DO. LET ME GO BACK TO A COMMENT YOU MADE AND THAT IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE MONEY THAN THE PEOPLE HAVE. YES WE DO. WE DO HAVE A PRINTING PRESSES. I HATE TO USE THAT TERM -- PRINTING MONEY -- BUT WE DO. WE HAVE BEEN A CHELATING DEBT IN THE U.S. FOR HOST OF OUR HISTORY. HOW DID WE DO THAT? THAT IS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ISSUED A LOT OF MONEY AND NO ONE HASBEEN ASKED TO PAY OFF OUR DEBT, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FINANCE OUR DEBT. THE CONSTRAINT ON US IS RAMPANT INFLATION. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT GOING FROM $300 TO $800 PER ROOM, BUT A LOT OF THE INVASION YOU ARE SEEING IS PANDEMIC RELATED AND NOT DEMAND RELATED. THE NUMBERS ARE A LITTLE DISTORTED BECAUSE THE NUMBERS WE SAW IN APRIL AND MAY THE LAST TWO MONTHS WERE COMPARED TO LAST APRIL AND MAY, THAT WAS WHEN EVERYTHING SHUT DOWN. AS YOU EMERGE FROM THAT PANDEMIC, PEOPLE WERE NOT GOING ANYWHERE SO THEY DID NOT BUY GAS. NOWGAS PRICES ARE UP. PEOPLE WERE NOT FLYING AND NOW THEY ARE. AIRLINE TICKETS HAVE GONE UP. A LOT OF THIS IS RELATED TO THE COMPARISON BETWEEN LAST SPRING AND NOW. THAT WILL CONTINUE FOR A WHILE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT. AT THE OPENING OF THE SHOW, FED CHAIR JAY POWELL TALKED ABOUT BOTTLENECKS. I HEAR ALL THE TIME, THE SHIPS ARE LINING UP TO GET INTO PORTS. YOU CAN FIND CONTAINERS TO ACTUALLY SHIP. THERE IS A SHORTAGE OF THAT. BUSINESSES ARE NOT ABLE TO GET SUPPLIES THEY NEED TO BUILD THEIR PRODUCTS. I HAVE A GENERAL ELECTRIC BUSINESS IN HIM MY DISTRICT AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW THE SUPPLY CHAIN HAS DISRUPTED THEIR BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET PARTS. WE KNOW ABOUT SEMI CONDUCTORS. I HAVE TWO FORD PLANTS IN MY DISTRICT. THEY HAD TO SHUT DOWN BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET SOME CONDUCTORS TO BUILD THEIR VEHICLES. THERE ARE A LOT OF PROBLEMS THAT I THINK MORE SITUATIONAL AND NOT RELATED TO FEDERAL SPENDING BUT RELATED TO OTHER COMPLEXITIES AROUND THE WORLD. HOPEFULLY, AND A LOT OF ECONOMISTS INC. WILL PLAY ITSELF OUT AND THE NEXT YEAR WE WILL BE FAIRLY BACK TO NORMAL IN TERMS OF INFLATION.

Show Less Text

00:16:46CHARLES, YOU ARE NEXT IN ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO. INDEPENDENT LINE.

00:16:50I HAVE NOTICED -- CALLER:

00:16:53 I HAVE NOTICED THIS DICHOTOMY ON THE LEFT AND THEIR VIEW OF POLITICS. ON ONE HAND, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO RESTRICT THE BEHAVIOR OF PEOPLE FOR ENVIRONMENT REASONS, I.E., BURNING FOSSIL FUELS AND USING LESS ENERGY. ON THE OTHER HAND, FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, THE LEFTISTS SAY WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU A GUARANTEED LIFESTYLE. YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL ALWAYS TAKE CARE OF YOU. FOR EXAMPLE, ILLEGITIMATE CHILD BIRTH. THAT IS A BIG PROBLEM IN OUR COUNTRY, FAMILY FORMATION. YOUNG LADIES GET PREGNANT, HAVE A BABY, THEYDON'T HAVE ANY MONEY. THEY ARE NOT EDUCATED. WHAT DO THE LET'S SAY -- WHAT DID THE LEFTISTS SAY? WE WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU, WE WILL GIVE YOU EDUCATION. THERE IS A LIMIT, I SINCERELY BELIEVE,

THAT MANKIND IS ENTERING THE ERA OF OVERPOPULATION. WE DO NOT HAVE UNLIMITED RESOURCES.

Show Less Text

00:17:57WE WILL HAVE THE CUMBERSOME RESPOND. -- THE CONGRESSMAN RESPOND.

00:18:03

IT IS INTERESTING YOU SAY THAT BECAUSE A LOT OF DEMOGRAPHERS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FACT THAT POPULATION GROWTH IS AT LOW LEVELS IN THE COUNTRY. OTHER COUNTRIES, TOO, ARE WORRIED ABOUT HAVING ENOUGH PEOPLE. WE HAD THE LOWEST GROWTH IN THE BIRTH RATE IN 50 OR 60 YEARS JUST THIS PAST YEAR. I DON'T THINK THE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR THEORY. I WILL SAY TWO THINGS ABOUT WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL SOCIAL SECURITY SPENDING. WHY WOULD A WOMAN WHO WANTS TO HAVE A CHILD WITHOUT BEING MARRIED NOTHAVE THE SAME SUPPORT AS SOMEONE WHO DOES? WE EDUCATE CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY ARE OUR FUTURE POPULATION AND FUTURE TAX BASE AND IT IS THE MORAL THING TO DO. WE DON'T EDUCATE THEM BASED ON WHAT FAMILY THEY COME FROM. I THINK IT IS A DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND OTHERS. I AMCOMFORTABLE BEING ON THE SIDE THAT WAS TO TAKE CARE OF OUR CHILDREN AND WANTS TO TREAT ALL OF OUR CITIZENS, WHETHER THEY ARE MARRIED OR NOT, WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF COMPASSION AND SUPPORT.

Show Less Text

00:19:34TAYLOR, MARYLAND.

00:19:36

I THINK YOUR ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WAS FANTASTIC. YOU GUYS WON WITH A CLEAR MAJORITY IN THE MANDATE AND I'M PROUD OF THE DEMOCRATS ARE MOVING AWAY FROM BIPARTISANSHIP. DO YOU THINK WITH A DOUBLE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL, THE SECOND ONE, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO GET PEOPLE LIKE SENATOR JOE MANCHIN TO AGREE TO A TAX RACE? WILL YOU RAISE IT -- WILL YOU GET IT BIPARTISAN AND THECLIMATE RELATED ONES IN THE SECOND BILL, YOU WILL BE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT WHILE REPUBLICANS WILL BE CHEERING THEIR WIN?

Show Less Text 00:20:17 I THINK THAT IS RIGHT. IF THERE IS A BIPARTISAN DEAL ON THE

REPUBLICAN VERSION OF INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH IS ROAD, BRIDGES, AIRPORTS, AND PORTS, BUT NOT HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE, WE WILL PASS IT WITH A GREAT DEAL OF SATISFACTION. I HOPE THEY DO THAT. ALL THE REST OF WHAT WE CALL INFRASTRUCTURE, THE HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE PART, THINGS LIKE TWO YEARS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN DO FOR OUR FUTURE BESIDES DEAL WITH, CHANGE. ELDERCARE -- DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, ELDERCARE, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS WILL HAVE TO BE DONE BY RECONCILIATION. WE WILL HAVE A PEARL A PROCESS. IF WE GET A BIPARTISAN DEAL, WE WOULD BE HAPPY WITH THAT. WE WILL DO THE REST OF IT BY RECONCILIATION. IF WE DON'T

GET A DEAL, WE WILL DO IT ALL BY RECONCILIATION.

Show Less Text

00:21:18

SHOULDN'T WE TRY TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS OR RISK ANOTHER BIBLE? -- ANOTHER BUBBLE? I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH CHINA OWNING OUR DEBT. WHEN IS IT DUE?

00:21:33

CHINA OWNS ROUGHLY $1 TRILLION OF OUR DEBT. IF THEY SAID THEY WANTED $1 TRILLION INSTEAD OF A TREASURY, WE WOULD PUT IT ON THEIR ACCOUNT AND THEY COULD DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED. WE COULD DO THAT WITH ANYBODY. THE EMPHASIS ON CHINA OWNING OUR DEBT IS OVERPLAYED. IT IS LESS THAN 5% OF THE DEBT.

Show Less Text

00:22:01SAN DIEGO, REPUBLICAN.

00:22:05THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY CALL. I AM READING A TREAT.

00:22:19KNOW YOU ARE ON -- I AM READING A TWEET.

00:22:26NO YOU ARE ON THE YEAR. GO AHEAD.

00:22:32I AM WONDERING, HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT $6 TRILLION IS?

00:22:43

YES, I HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT IT IS. IT IS A LOT MORE THAN I HAVE IN MY BANK ACCOUNT. WHAT I HAVE SAID THROUGHOUT THIS APPEARANCE IS WE ARE NOT FAMILIES. AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, WE ARE NOT FAMILIES. WE HAVE BEEN BORROWING MONEY TO SERVICE THE COUNTRY, TO SERVE THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY FOR 230 YEARS. WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE NEEDS ARE MORE. WE CHOOSE TO TAX OUR CITIZENS. IF WE RELIED ON TAXATION, PURELY ON TAXATION TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT, THEN A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD SUPPER VERY SERIOUSLY BECAUSE WE COULD NOT PROVIDE NEARLY THESERVICES THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT US TO PROVIDE.

Show Less Text

00:23:32TOM IN FLORIDA, DEMOCRATIC CALLER.

00:23:35

I JUST WONDER, DO WE HAVE TO GROW AND GROW TO BE A HEALTHIERNATION? WE ARE USING UP FINITE RESOURCES. WE HAVE TO STOP THIS CRAZY GROWTH. WHAT A RETURN TO KEEP UP WITH, THE CHINESE? I THINK WE WOULD HAVE HAD A WORLD WAR AND WE WOULD ALL BE DEAD IF THE CHINESE DID NOT HAVE A ONE CHILD FAMILY. NOW THEY WILL GO TO A THREE CHILD FAMILY. THERE ARE OVER -- THEY ARE OVER A ONE BILLION POPULATION OVER THERE. ARE WE TRYING TO COMPETE WITH THEM WITH PEOPLE? IT JUST TAKES MORE RESOURCES, MORE POLLUTION --

Show Less Text 00:24:16 WE UNDERSTAND. CONGRESSMAN?

00:24:23

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A DECLINING BIRTHRATE IN THE COUNTRY. WE ARE NOT GROWING, WE ACTUALLY NEED TO GROW IT. WE CANNOT STAY WERE BE OUR. YOU KNOW -- WE CANNOT STAY WHERE WE ARE. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE ME TURNING 65 WHO ARE RELYING ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAL CARE. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE REPLACING THEM IN THE WORKFORCE TO PAY FOR THOSE PROGRAMS. AT ONE POINT EARLY ON THERE WERE 13 PEOPLE WORKING TO SUPPORT EVERY SOCIAL SECURITY FOR SHERRY -- SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARY. WE DO NEED MORE PEOPLE IN THE WORKFORCE.

Show Less Text

00:25:07THE BOOK YOU CITED EARLIER FROM THE PROFESSOR, WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT BOOK AGAIN?

00:25:13

IT IS CALLED "THE DEFICIT MYTH." IT IS WRITTEN FOR ORDINARY CITIZENS, IT IS VERY EASY TO READ. IF IT DOES NOT CHANGE HER MIND ABOUT THINKING ABOUT MONEY, IT WILL MAKE YOU THINK ABOUT IT. I HAVE TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT -- IT IS A THEORY SHE IS WRITING ABOUT CALLED MODERN MONETARY THEORY. EVERYBODY I TALKED TO WHO HAS READ THE BOOK AND HAS THOUGHT ABOUT IT HAS SAID FUNDAMENTALLY SHE IS RIGHT ON THE BASICS OF THE THEORY. EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SKEPTICAL OF NMT SAY SHE DID NOT GET ANYTHING WRONG. THEY MAY NOT AGREE WITH THE THREE, BUT THE FOUNDATION OF HER THEORY AND OTHERS IS SOUND.

Show Less Text

00:26:09SHE HAS APPEARED ON C-SPAN A COUPLE OF TIMES. YOU CAN FIND HER IF YOU GO TO C-SPAN.ORG, DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HER BOOK.

00:26:20SHE HAS BEEN ON PROGRAMS YOU CAN FIND ON YOUTUBE WHERE IN 20 MINUTES SHE EXPLAINS THE THEORY.

00:26:27CHAIRMAN JOHN YARMUTH OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, DEMOCRAT OF KENTUCKY, WE APPRECIATE OUR DISCUSSION WITH YOU.

00:26:34THANKS, GOOD BEING WITH YOU.

2021 uzt. 11

Representative John Yarmuth on President Biden's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request

(https://twitter.com/HouseBudgetDems/status/1405657111514779649)

House Budget Committee @HouseBudgetDems

As Chair @RepJohnYarmuth said on @cspanwj earlier today, for too long, self-inflicted austerity has been mistaken for fiscal responsibility–to the detriment of America’s families & our economy. @HouseDemocrats are ready to change course.

Chair Yarmuth joins CSPAN to discuss President Biden's FY22 budget proposal.

2021 eka. 18

(a) Warren Mosler: Warren Mosler: interes tasak eta inflazioa

00:20:59.130] – Reporter

Back with us this morning is the chair of the House Budget Committee, Congressman John Yarmuth, Democrat of Kentucky. Congressman, as you know, the president unveiled a $6 trillion budget requestfor fiscal year 2022. Chairman Yarmuth, how can we spend $6 trillion and all the other money that President Biden wants to spend? How can we afford it?

[00:21:22.980] – John Yarmuth

We can afford it because we determine how much money is in the system at the federal level. The federal government is not like any other user of currency, not like any household, any business, any state or local government. We issue our own currency and we can spend enough to meet the needs of the American people.

The only constraint being that we do have to worry about inflation from that spending. Now, so manypeople say, well, we’ve got so much debt and our grandchildren, it’s going to be on their backs and soforth. That’s not the way it works. And I think the American people need an education about how the monetary system does work.

I remember going back when Paul Ryan was chair of the Budget Committee and even before that and all of these forecasts of gloom and doom about, “Oh, we’re going to accumulate so much debt and interest rates are going to crowd out all other spending.” Well, we basically doubled the national debtfrom the recession in 2009 until last year before the pandemic.

And none of the things that people warned what happened, happened. We didn’t have inflation. We had record low interest rates rather than higher interest rates. And the dollar was trading within normal levels vis a vis other currencies. So I think a lot of economists now have begun to say, “Wait a minute. Maybe we’ve been thinking about debt in entirely the wrong way.”

And even the Fed chair, Jay Powell, has basically said we have the fiscal space to do what we need to do right now to make the investments we need to make to build the kind of economy for the future that we all hope we’ll have.

[00:22:56.730] – Reporter

Well, why are people wrong about this? And how should we be thinking about debt and deficits?

[00:23:02.670] – John Yarmuth

Well, I don’t get any royalties from this, but I would flag a book called “The Deficit Myth” by Stephanie Kelton, an economist and professor. And it’s become quite a bestseller, actually. And what she says is that if you look at the total national debt, $28 trillion right now, what we think of as the national debt, she said, “Don’t think of it as debt. Think of it as all the money that the federal government has invested in the country over our history, minus taxes.”

And that’s really what it is. I mean, those $28 trillion didn’t exist before the federal government issued them. So the federal government has the ability to create money, create financing, and that’s what we’ve been doing, will continue to do. The thing that I am so impressed about from the Biden administration is that they’re reversing decades and decades of our asking questions in the wrong order.

Historically, what we’ve always done is said, “What can we afford to do?” And that’s not the right question. The right question is what do the American people need us to do? And that question becomes the first question. Once you’ve answered that, then you say, “How do you resource that need?” And that’s not just money, that’s also capacity.

So, for instance, there’s a $225 billion investment in child care in the American Families Plan, but you can’t just say we’re going to give $225 billion to people to pay for their child care because there’s not enough capacity. So what you do is you’d make a false promise to the people and then you would drive the price of existing childcare even higher.

So what you have to do is spend part of that money on building capacity so that there’s enough child care to actually service the people who need it. So, again, they’re just very different ways of thinking about money. And I understand why most people don’t understand this concept because they think of it in their own framework, which is their household, which is you can’t borrow so much money that you can’t pay back. But that’s not the position that the federal government’s in.

[00:25:02.010] – Reporter

Congressman, are you saying we can just print more money and there’s no consequences?

[00:25:06.600] – John Yarmuth

There could be consequences if there is too much inflation. So let me give you a hypothetical. We could say that we’re going to give every American family a $200,000 voucher to buy a house. We could create the money to do that. But what would happen? Well, there’s not enough housing. So theprices of existing houses would go through the roof, no pun intended.

And again, you’d be creating a false promise. But meanwhile, you drive up the housing market to unsustainable levels. So there is a limit as to how much money we can inject into the economy. The thing about the rescue plan, and here’s where I think Kevin Hearn makes a mistake, is he said $6 trillion, American Families Plan and job plan.

It’s not quite that much, but that’s over eight to10 years. So the $6 trillion budget that the president proposed actually would have been $5.7 trillion if you had had no American Jobs Plan or American Rescue Plan, because only $300 billion of that is in fiscal year 2022.

So, again, you’ve got to realize these are numbers that are very large, of course, but they’re spread out over a number of years. And that’s why I think the Fed chair and others have said we have the fiscal space to do this because injecting this over a period of time will not cause the kind of inflation that is dangerous.

(b) Randall Wray: Randall Wray, elkarrizketa (2021.07.10)

[00:11:35.150] – Wray

Yeah, in fall 2019, Yarmuth invited me to the Budget Committee and I gave a talk and I talked to him beforehand. I talked to his staff on the phone so that they could tell me what they wanted me to do there. And I was surprised because I thought I should put together a presentation that would just focus on the data and show that all the fears about deficits have never come true.

So demonstrate the whole Orthodox thinking about deficits and debt is just completely wrong. And so I sent them a bunch of slides and they said, “Yeah, this is good, but we really want you to talk about MMT. This is what Yarmuth wants. And he said that we’re all talking about this and the Democratic side is pretty much on board, they really do want to hear the explanation.”

And I got a bit of a warning just before I went to Washington that a right-wing think tank had prepared the talking points for the Republicans. And so if anyone’s watched that video, you’ll see they’re like zombies. They’ve been programmed to just repeat those talking points. That’s all they did.

The Democratic side, so I was assured that they were on board. And I think that Yarmuth’s interview recently demonstrates just how onboard they are. This is not just him. I know he was only speaking for himself, but I think that the others on the Budget Committee, the other Democrats, share many ofthose same views. So the tide has turned.

[00:13:27.900] – Grumbine

That’s huge. That’s huge.

[00:13:31.110] – Wray

They’re still, of course, are politics. There’s still is hesitation about what can be said in public because you’ve got to run again and whatever you say will be used against you by the Republicans using the usual scare tactics. So I’m not saying it was going to come out and be as forthright as him. People in safe districts, I guess, could do that.

But, you know, they’ve got to be careful about what they say and how they vote and so on. I understand all that. But just as far as the message getting through, it has gotten through. And I think that also explains why we were able to have $5 trillion through in various relief packages. Some people call it stimulus, but there was no stimulus.

It was really without talking about pay fors. But as we see, pay for is being used by both sides actually in the next four trillion. So, the ideas are there, the politics are still difficult. We’re not home free...

Beraz?

DTM ofizialki onartua AEB-ko Kongresuan via John Yarmuth (eta Randall Wray gehi Stepanie Kelton-en liburua: The Defizit Myth)

Argentinan

La Teoría Monetaria Moderna llegó al Gobierno de EE.UU., ¿al FdT y JxC también?

(https://eleconomista.com.ar/2021-07-teoria-monetaria-moderna-fdt-y-jxc/)

Es muy saludable que Caputo, Lousteau y Vallejos se interesen por la TMM. Si Yarmuth, que está a cargo de la comisión del presupuesto más grande del mundo, la adoptó, entonces todos los economistas y políticos deberían entenderla, incluso si la consideren errónea

1 de julio, 2021

El pasado 17 de junio, el canal C.SPAN mostró una entrevista con John Yarmuth, diputado de Estados Unidos y actual director de la Comisión de Presupuesto en el Congreso de ese país.

En el video, el congresista explica claramente el funcionamiento de la economía en base al libro que escribió la proponente de la Teoría Monetaria Moderna (TMM o MMT, en inglés) Stephanie Kelton (“El Mito del Déficit1”).

Hace un par de años cuando uno consultaba sobre dicha teoría a los economistas la respuesta solía incluir una sonrisa socarrona y una levantada de cejas. A medida que pasa el tiempo, eso va dejando de ser cierto.

Tal es así que cuando le consulté por Twitter a Luis “Toto” Caputo, exministro de Finanzas durante el Gobierno de Cambiemos, qué opinaba sobre la MMT, me respondió “lejos de subestimarla, creo que cada vez gana más adeptos (y detractores)”.

Después de Janet Yellen, Secretaria del Tesoro y Jerome Powell, Chairman de la Reserva Federal, pocos funcionarios tienen tanta influencia en las decisiones económicas del país más rico del mundo como John Yarmuth.

La Teoría Monetaria Moderna (TMM), para bien o para mal, ya se está convirtiendo en “mainstream”. Todos los economistas deberían entender de qué se trata (y no sólo tocar de oído). Me consta de algunos que ya la están estudiando. No se preocupen, prometo no mandarlos al frente.

1 Espainierazko bertsioa: https://www.amazon.es/mito-del-déficit-monetaria-nacimiento/dp/8430624104/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_es_ES=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&dchild=1&keywords=stephanie+kelton+el+mito+del+deficit&qid=1626076802&sr=8-1.

¿Y por Argentina como andamos?

En un tweet del 24 de junio pasado, el senador de Juntos por el Cambio, Martín “Guga” Lousteau ponderó el mismo libro que había mencionado Yarmuth en su aparición televisiva.

Dijo: “The Deficit Myth (el “Mito del Déficit”) de @StephanieKelton brinda una nueva perspectiva: para resolver problemas reales re-enfoquémonos en restricciones reales. Si bien se aplica a los países con soberanía monetaria, también sirve para pensar qué funciona y qué no en países emergentes. Y por qué”.

Por su parte, a la diputada del Frente de Todos, Fernanda Vallejos, se la asoció con la TMM cuando participó de una conferencia en el 2019 junto a Eduardo Garzón, miembro de la RedMMT, (...).

¿Acaso se están uniendo al “club” de la TMM tanto Lousteau y Vallejos? ¿Podrá ser una forma de cerrar la grieta?

Déjenme primero hacer un comentario sobre el tweet de Lousteau.

En el mismo menciona “países con soberanía monetaria” y da a entender que Argentina no cuenta con la misma.

¿Qué implica tener soberanía monetaria? Si yo le pregunto a 10 personas distintas esa pregunta, probablemente obtenga 10 respuestas diferentes.

“Soberanía monetaria” es un concepto ambiguo. Warren Mosler, quien desarrolló la TMM, se la pasa machacando con la necesidad de ser precisos en los términos y no caer en esas ambigüedades, porque suelen conducir a errores.

Por ejemplo, a él no lo van a escuchar hablar de “dinero” o “deuda” salvo muy coloquialmente. El prefiere usar los términos precisos para referirse exactamente a lo que está hablando; “reservas del banco central”, “bonos del tesoro”, “depósitos bancarios”, etcétera.

En el caso de Kelton, la verdad es que no recuerdo si utiliza en el libro el término que menciona Lousteau, pero claramente así lo entendió el senador.

¿A qué puede estar refiriéndose Kelton en ese caso?

A la posibilidad de un país de sostener el pleno empleo en todo momento. Sin ambigüedades, así suele definir Mosler lo que otros llaman “soberanía monetaria” y así debiera ser entendido.

¿Cumple Argentina con esa condición según la TMM?

Depende a quien se le pregunte. Si es a Mosler, dirá que sí. Otros proponentes, en cambio, sostienen que tener deuda en moneda extranjera impide aquella posibilidad.

Mi posición es la misma de Warren. La única condición para poder sostener el pleno en empleo en todo momento es que el Gobierno sea el emisor de aquello que reclama como pago de impuestos y que no ate esa moneda a un tipo de cambio fijo, como por ejemplo con el dólar o el oro.

¿Quiénes no cumplen o no cumplieron en algún momento con esa condición?

Los europeos que participan del euro y Argentina durante la Convertibilidad, por ejemplo. No son casualidad los altos índices de desempleo que en los últimos tiempos se registran en España, Italia y Grecia, o las largas colas buscando trabajo que tan amargamente recordamos quienes vivimos en estepaís.

¿Qué le recomendaría a Lousteau? Que lea a Mosler, claro.

¿Y Vallejos?

No soy un seguidor habitual de Vallejos y, por lo tanto, no puedo opinar sobre su manera de pensar desde el punto de vista económico.

Pero si sus recomendaciones son similares a las medidas que toma el Gobierno actual o las que se tomaron durante la presidencia de Cristina Kirchner, entonces claramente no debe ser una “MMTer”.

En primer lugar, un “MMTer” nunca recomendaría un tipo de cambio que no fuera libre y flotante porla razón antes mencionada: no permite sostener el pleno empleo.

Por otro lado, un “MMTer” recomendaría no poner barreras ni aranceles a las importaciones. Estas son generadoras de productividad en la economía que “agrandan la torta” con productos de mejor calidad y a menor precio que los que podrían lograrse internamente.

No, no generan desempleo con tipo de cambio flotante. La desocupación es siempre un tema de ingreso no gastado y la falta de demanda puede compensarse con un ajuste fiscal, bajando impuestoso subiendo el gasto.

Probablemente un “MMTer” tampoco recomendaría un marco regulatorio muy estricto sobre el sector privado (salvo en el caso del sector bancario) que perjudicara la productividad de la economía en su conjunto.

Mosler suele decir que la causa de la baja en la inflación de los años de Paul Volcker no fue la tasa de interés sino las desregulaciones energéticas de Jimmy Carter. La tasa alta, al contrario, habría prolongado la inflación y es por ello que la baja fuerte que se registró en el precio internacional del petróleo no repercutió en la inflación de ese país hasta muchos años después.

Argentina es claramente un infierno regulatorio que hace muy difícil dedicarse a trabajar con burocracias interminables. El economista y profesor Juan Carlos De Pablo suele decir que “los empresarios argentinos no trabajan sino que están ocupados, que no es lo mismo”.

Esa es una fuente clara de la inflación, según la TMM. Un sector privado agobiado, al que no dejan trabajar y al cual el Estado quiere extraerle cada vez más recursos (reales). Imposible de lograr sin subir los precios que paga el Gobierno.

Es esa suba la causa definitiva de la inflación. El sector público redefiniendo para abajo el valor de su moneda, medida en términos de los bienes y servicios que tiene ofrecer el sector privado para conseguirla, cada vez que aquel sube los precios que paga.

Conclusión

Es muy saludable que Caputo, Lousteau y Vallejos se interesen por la TMM.

Si Yarmuth, que está a cargo de la comisión del presupuesto estatal más grande del mundo, la adoptó,entonces todos los economistas y políticos deberían entenderla, incluso aunque la consideren errónea.

Para hacerlo recomiendo fervientemente empezar por la fuente: el ya mencionado Warren Mosler. Ensu web moslereconomics.com pueden encontrar en forma gratuita uno de sus libros (en inglés) llamado “The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy”. Si no, pueden encontrar la versión en español2 (...)

Empezaría por ahí y cualquier consulta o crítica será bienvenida.

Euskal Herrian

Ez naiz frantsesa, ezta espainiarra ere, soilik euskalduna, Victor Hugo-k esan zuen moduan: “Un Basque n’est ni Français, ni Espagnol; il est basque et c’est tout3

Ez, ez dugu inolako banku zentralik, baina hortxe dago Europar Banku Zentrala (EBZ), eta EBZ da Europar Batasuna delakoan banku zentral jaulkitzaile bakarra, eta beste banku zentral guztien antzera, EBZ-k sortu dezake behar den beste euro, inolako kosturik gabe.

Beraz, zergatik Euskal Herri osoan ez du inork eskatzen AEB-ko John Yarmuyh-k eskatu duena, alegia, EBZ-k eurotan bilioiak jaulkitzea?

Zergatik Argentinan batzuek eskatzen dute, AEB-n bezala, eta hemen ez?

Zergatik nonahi eztabaidatzen da gai horretaz, eta hemen ez?

Non daude EH osoko intelektualak, ekonomialariak, zientzialariak, kazetariak (horreur!), politikariak eta abar oso luzea...?

Eta euskaraz?

In https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2015/02/27/pro-domo/

Ezker Abertzaleko bati, oso ezaguna den bati, aspaldian aipatu nion Warren Mosler-en liburua, hots, The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy, euskarara itzultzeko, baita prest nengoela hitzaurre/aurkezpen moduko bat egiteko ere, Mosler prest zegoela Euskal Herrira etortzeko gaineratuz.

Oso ongi (sic) … eta gaur arte.

Hortaz?

Noiz itzuliko dira DTM-ko testu nagusiak euskarara?

2 Bertsio espainiarra, dohainik, hemen: http://moslereconomics.com/2014/10/23/seven-deadly-innocent-frauds-of-economic-policy-translation-to-spanish/.

3 Ikus https://dicocitations.lemonde.fr/citations/citation-44836.php.

Gehigarriak

Argentinar batzuek ikasi dute, euskaldunek ez Warren Mosler-ek Argentinako Bolivar taldekoei DTM-z (ingelesez eta espainieraz) Warren Mosler-ek Argentinako Bolivar taldekoei DTM-z (ingelesez, transkripzioa)

“The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy” – Warren Mosler

Zazpi gezur politika ekonomikoan (1)

Zazpi gezur politika ekonomikoan (2)

Zazpi gezur politika ekonomikoan (Warren Mosler-en aurkezpena, 2015)

Zazpi gezur politika ekonomikoan eta Nola funtzionatzen duen diruak

Zazpi gezur politika ekonomikoan (Ezjakintasunaren alferkeriak nagusi)

DTM: Zazpi gezur politika ekonomikoan

Warren Mosler-ek: Politika ekonomikoaren gezurrak

Bosgarren gezur inuzentea (Warren Mosler)

Ingelesez eta espainieraz:Zazpi gezur politika ekonomikoan (Warren Mosler-en aurkezpena, 2015)

Warren Mosler: zazpi gezur politika ekonomikoan (bertsio laburtua)

Warren Mosler-en liburua espainieraz

Presentación de "Los Siete Fraudes Inocentes Capitales de la Política Económica" - Warren Mosler (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swQIVVg8Rt8)

Zazpi gezur politika ekonomikoan (ingelesez eta espainieraz)Los 7 fraudes inocentes capitales de la política económica. Bideoa (espainieraz): https://www.intecca.uned.es/portalavip/grabacion.php?ID_Grabacion=169308&ID_Sala=3&hashData=9bba9e00253d6e6f243fbe1017fec0ce&paramsToCheck=SURfR3JhYmFjaW9uLElEX1NhbGEs